Mangera v Robi & another (Constitutional Petition E003 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 5258 (KLR)

The Applicant annexed a Title Deed showing registration of L.R. No. BUGUMBE/MABERA/5472 in his name, and ownership was not controverted. The 1st Respondent's own depositions and annexures confirmed the intended development targeted the very market area where the Applicant's stalls stand, and partial demolition had already occurred. General denials by the Respondents could not displace this. Applying Mrao Ltd v First American Bank, the Applicant showed apparent infringement calling for rebuttal, raising a triable issue on whether compulsory acquisition and compensation under Article 40 were undertaken.

Relying on Nguruman Limited v Nielsen, the court held that irreparable injury is injury not adequately compensable by damages, and this limb must be established independently of a strong prima facie case. The Applicant deponed to permanent structures serving as a commercial hub for himself, tenants and the community; partial demolition had already caused tension and insecurity. Structures, once demolished, may be rebuilt, but aesthetic value and business goodwill cannot be 'resurrected' by an award of damages, and livelihood disruption has ripple effects on social lives.

Applying Amir Suleiman v Amboseli Resort Limited, the court weighed the hardship to each side. What was sought was not a permanent bar to development but preservation of the status quo pending determination of legality of the acquisition process and compensation under Article 40. The Respondents would suffer no irreversible prejudice from maintaining the status quo for the limited period needed to conclude the Petition, whereas the Applicant faced virtually irreversible loss if construction proceeded. The court added that the sanctity of title for the weak and vulnerable is a pillar of socio-economic stability.

The 2nd Respondent argued no statutory mandate clothed him with demolition authority, and the 1st Respondent disclaimed involvement, asserting the project is a National Government initiative. However, the Applicant's affidavit alleged both Respondents publicly declared, through barazas and loudspeakers, their intention to demolish the structures - an allegation not specifically denied. Whether either bore responsibility by instigation, authorisation or otherwise was a disputed question of fact unsuitable for resolution on competing affidavits at an interlocutory stage, especially in constitutional rights proceedings.